I did give you the facts. Clark gave the facts. President Bush came into office in January, and right out of the gate he was talking about finishing off Bin Laden. Quote: “I’m tired of swatting at flies”. The Clinton administration had sat on plans to do anything about Bin laden since 1998. Bush ordered them dusted off and carried out. He then changed U.S. policy from a five-year plan to erode al-Qaida to a new plan to simply attack them now and wipe them out. He quintupled the CIA’s budget for Afghanistan.
And he was only in office for eight months before 9/11. How can you seriously hold any amount of blame on Bush, while simultaneously avoiding blame for Clinton? All of those terrorist attacks that happened on his watch went essentially unpunished. The CIA says it was under the impression that it could not kill bin Laden other than in the course of a legitimate capture attempt. Clinton says otherwise. Third parties say the signal was ‘confused’.
I personally wouldn’t hold either man responsible - the world was a very different place on 9/10, and threats that look obvious today simply weren’t so obvious before. It doesn’t matter if Bush had a plan to invade Afghanistan - prior to 9/11 the world would have howled had he tried it. You Bush critics would have howled the most. Both Clinton and Bush had their hands tied by what the electorate would stand for, and prior to 9/11 that wasn’t much. And congress bears some blame, along with those politicians in the 80’s and 90’s who grandstanded by continually attacking the CIA and demanding reforms that left its human intel operations in tatters. The CIA was forced to pull back from such operations in favor of signals and other electronic intelligence and surveillance. That hasn’t worked out too well.
Ya know, I’m getting awfully tired of people blithely saying “That’s 20/20 hindsight”. “Hindsight” is when you know something only after the fact, but had no way of knowing at the time. When the guy who is supposed to be advising you on terrorism is telling you to pay attention to al Qaeda, and you sideline him because of some personal vendetta against Iraq, that’s just incompetence.
Actually, we’ve been over this a lot. Clinton did not ignore al Qaeda. He listened to Clarke; his security council met several times a week on the issue, and he put Clarke in charge of formulating a plan. Bush did none of these things; he stonewalled Clarke. The question isn’t “did he get to al Qaeda before 9/11”, but rather “Did he even do anything at all to even address the problem?”, as well as “Did he do the right things after 9/11?”
We now have two Washington insiders and one British official who paint a very clear picture of a President who was literally obsessed with Saddam Hussein to the exclusion of all else. It’s not hindsight; they knew at the time that Bush was barking up the wrong tree. Exactly how many high-level officials saying it would it take before people would believe it?
I don’t know how you can say that. Bush was obviously chomping at the bit to go over and kick Saddam’s butt from day one of his presidency. The guy’s about as interventionalist as they come.
You know, I haven’t heard an inkling of this being true; that Bush had a plan to take out al Qaeda and only balked because of public opinion. According to Clarke, Bush simply shelved the idea, and didn’t get around to it for 9 months. And Clarke’s no pundit; he worked for Reagan for God’s sake. I suppose one can believe that he just wanted to throw 30 years of service in the toilet so he could sell a book, but I just don’t get that impression from hearing the man speak.
I just don’t buy that analogy. This wasn’t some random person crying wolf, it was the guy who was supposed to be ADVISING the president on terrorism. If the warnings only sounded like random chatter to Bush, then it’s pretty obvious whose fault it was.
Besides which, you’re leaving the response to 9/11 out of the picture completely. For crying out loud, Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq because they had “better targets” than Afghanistan. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.
Just a quick point of fact. The Bush administration did not – repeat, did not – increase funding for counter-terrorism operations prior to 9/11. Rather – read carefully, now – they authorized a five-fold increase in funding. But that authorization was, apparently, never acted upon, and the money was never appropriated. In his testimony yesterday, Clarke explained:
I mention this just for the sake of historical accuracy. Essentially. Clarke’s criticizes the Bush administration paying little more than lip-service to his counter-terrorism efforts. For example, they “authorized” increase funding for his programs without ever going through the process of actually appropriating the money. Meanwhile, the various policy proposals were bogged down in committee review, despite the fact that Clarke and Tenet were repeatedly telling the administration that the matter was URGENT.
You continue:
Well, judging from Clarke’s testimony, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. The Clinton administration was actively involved in counter-terrorist activities, successfully preventing a number of planned attacks, including a millenium attack aimed at the LA International airport. As you and manny have pointed out, no one would have supported an invasion of Afghanistan prior to 9/11, so you can hardly fault Clarke for not suggesting it. And, finally, as I pointed above, there was no increase in the CIA budget vis-a-vis Afghanistan prior to 9/11.
If one wants to place blame on Clinton, I think this is really the place to start. Reducing the funding and support for human intelligence services, translators, etc., is one of the worst legacies of his administration, and a terrible mistake.
By the way, Clarke’s testimony can be located here.
Finally, since this is an open thread, allow me to share an insightful tidbit I stumbled across at the Agonist, originally from Stratford:
Oooh, “talk.” “Swatting flies.” Goodness, it’s a wonder that al Qaeda was able to withstand that terrible assault of empty rhetoric.
As even you point out, the political reality pre-9/11 would not have permitted any kind of sustained military response.
[/quote]
Bush ordered them dusted off and carried out.
[/quote]
After 9/11! And after his advisers repeatedly, repeatedly buried the plan in peat moss out behind the bureaucratic shed.
After 9/11!
I do not “avoid blame for Clinton.” He’s responsible for his share too. But say what you want about the guy, at least he put the issue on the front burner and kept the government on guard. Bush and his administration couldn’t be bothered.
As Clarke points out, what would have happened if the Bushies had put the government on high alert in the summer of '01, like Clinton had in the months before 12/31/99? Would the the FBI have finally offered the information that two known al Qaeda members had entered the country in recent months? Would those FBI memos about fundie wackos taking flight training have gone anywhere? Would they maybe have issued warnings to airport security, telling them to be extra careful in their passenger searches?
You of all people should know that I of all people would be among the last to subscribe to the philosophy you mention above. I think Bush is a lying sack of shit, and the sooner we boot the motherfucker out of office, the better. I can’t imagine being more vocal in my criticism of Bush or his foreign policy misadventures than I have been in the last couple of years, especially here on these boards.
I didn’t link to the article because I can’t find it at Stratford, either. Sean-Paul over at the Agonist (whom you quote, above), is also stridently critical of Bush… although I agree with you that the section you quote is a bit ambiguous in that regard.
Sorry if you find the section I quoted offensive. I thought it was interesting from a “propaganda” perspective (for lack of a better name). Orwell wrote in 1984 that “he who controls the past controls the present, and he who controls the present controls the future.” With these hearings we see this process in action. Clarke’s version of events challenges the Bush administration’s mythological narrative of the past. In that narrative, Bush was strong, his administration was actively fighting Al Qaida, etc., etc. If that narrative can be “reframed,” so to speak – if it can be transformed into a dominant narrative of incompetence, weakness, and untruthfulness – then we have that much better of a chance to get rid of Bush come November. I think the Bushitas are very aware of this, and aware of it on precisely this level, which is why the Wicked Witch of the West (Wing] sent out his minions of flying monkeys to destroy Clarke on the news shows yesterday, armed with the counter-narrative of a disgruntled, “out of the loop” ex-employee. Being a post-modern presidency, they don’t believe facts exist, or at least that they are important; they believe the only important thing is the discourse about facts. Hence their skills at upside-downism.
No, no, I quite understand where you’re coming from, I couldn’t understand what your point was in quoting that. I thought it (the quote) sounded like BS, and said so.
I no longer need to concern myself with Clarke’s credibility. It’s plain to see that this is a quality he does not possess. It’s clear that his book, testimony and the 2002 background briefing are in direct conflict.
Some may argue that he only said those things in 2002 due to still being an employee at the time, and some of that may be true. However, it is balanced out by his current desire to drive book sales.
If he sullied his integrity in 2002, then there is also no reason to believe him in 2004. It’s obvious the man is a liar.
So you still dismiss Clarke’s credibility, you say? Okay. But who then *do * you choose to believe, and *why * do they have greater credibility in your eyes?
We can say the same thing about George W. Bush. And Bush, unlike Clarke, is running for re-election based largely on his integrity. By your argument, then, there’s also no reason to believe – much less vote for – Bush in 2004.
You’re assuming that I believe any of them 100% of the time, which is not true. The beef I have with Clarke is that he has been thrust upon a white horse and paraded around like he’s the 2nd coming of Christ by politicians and members of the media solely because his story fuels their agenda. As soon as his 10 minutes of fame are up (very soon now), they won’t even give him a 2nd thought.
Bush may not be perfect, but I still trust him more than Kerry.
You’re assuming that I believe any of them 100% of the time, which is not true. The beef I have with Clarke is that he has been thrust upon a white horse and paraded around like he’s the 2nd coming of Christ by politicians and members of the media solely because his story fuels their agenda. As soon as his 10 minutes of fame are up (very soon now), they won’t even give him a 2nd thought.
Bush may not be perfect, but I still trust him more than Kerry.
I’m afraid poor rjung suffers from a misunderstanding about the nature of “integrity”. When Clarke was sent forth to put the best face on things, to protect the Shining One from the dastardly interpretations of the Libruhl Media, this isn’t whoring one’s integrity, despite the massive spreading of legs involved and the multiple insertions of porcine flesh.
But this is apostasy!: turning away from the source of Truth and Light and spreading deliberate truthoods. This sort of thing clouds the minds of even the most devoted, as witness the recent apparent conflict in the testimony of Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney. (I say “apparent” conflict because clearly both are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but you betcha…any apparent conflict must be illusory). OK, so it appears as though the testimony of these worthies is a mutual contradiction. But that’s only because you lack the sophistication to detect the nuances and subtle distinctions.
Note also that the Administration is fearless and open, perfectly willing to face such stern inquiry on the part of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, chips fall where they may! Boy, talk about walking fearless into the kitten’s den!
No, flickster, I’m not *assuming * anything about who you believe and why, nor did I say anything about “100% or nothing” (the reply you gave is a fallacy called “excluding the middle” in the realm of debate). I’m *asking * you about who and what you choose to believe (and to what extent, since you bring it up) - and you’re evading the question in favor of simply heaping more scorn on a particular one of the many people you claim to disbelieve.
What, then, if not “who”, do you believe happened, and why do you believe it? Whose accounts do you dismiss less totally than you dismiss Clarke’s, and why?
Hmmm…whom to believe?.. Clarke, who appears before the commission and gives frank answers without hesitation, or his detractors in the White House who can’t be bothered to show up to testify, preferring to lob grenades from the shelter of right-wing media pundits?
There are a few things about this whole thing that ought to be apparent by now. The first is that the Bush Administration sees Mr. Clarke’s statements as dangerous to the President’s reelection efforts, and perhaps fatal. The Administration is now at full “cover your ass” alert. Thus we have the big dawgs running around from sympathetic pundit to sympathetic pundit trying to minimize the impact of Mr. Clarke’s statements in his book and to the 9/11 Commission and to generally discredit Mr. Clarke. As an illustration of that we have everybody’s favorite reactionary mouthpiece, Cal Thomas’s piece that appeared in the Local Paper to day.
In the op-ed piece our friend Calvin says that Mr. Clarke’s book “was initially made available only to journalists and not to those in the administration on the receiving end of. Clarke’s criticism. This according to an administration spokesman with whom I have spoken. This seems more than passing strange, if not down right false, in light of the requirement that former government officials and employees submit their stuff for vetting before publication. This requirement has been referred to several times in these boards when dealing with claims that the Bush Administration was blindsided by Clarke’s book. The only thing that saves Mr. Thomas and his unidentified informant is the weasel language about “initially” and “those in the administration on the receiving end.” I suppose this may mean that Condi Rice did not personally receive a pre-publication courtesy copy of the Clarke book. It imply that the Administration was blindsided, however, is plainly and simply a deliberate misrepresentation—assuming of course that Calvin was told that and he is not just making up what ever is convenient.
Calvin also says that Clarke’s judgments and statements can be disregarded as partisan falsehood because “his former deputy, Randy Beers, is now an advisor to the presidential campaign of John F. Kerry.” Well, so what. A guy that worked for (I assume) the Clinton White House is now helping the Kerry Campaign. This is a far cry for the talk to the effect that Clarke himself was part of the Kerry cabal.
Old Calvin finishes up with a denunciation of Clarke for not accepting responsibility for 9/11. Interestingly enough that is just what Clarke did in his testimony on Wednesday. This is in contrast to Calvin’s dramatic closing in which, per his modus operandi, he says that it is all Bill Clinton’s fault.
The other thing that should be apparent is that we are in the final argument stage of public 9/11 Commission hearings. Is at this stage that the contending sides get up on their hind feet and emphasize the positive and minimize the negative. Either argument can be highly persuasive if you haven’t heard the evidence. The old adage that if the facts are on your side you should argue the facts, if the law is on your side you should argue the law, and if you have neither the law nor the facts you should beat on the table. Clearly I haven’t seen all the evidence in the form of the last few days of testimony before the Commission, or the staff reports or the testimony (statements) taken in private, but it does seem to me that the Administration is loudly beating on the table. Cal Thomas’s column is only one thump. Dr Rice, the Vice-President and Secretary Rumsfelt are also beating away. That approach leads me to think that there well may be some merit to the contentions that the Administration had other priorities (to para-phrase the Vice-President) in the face of the emerging threat from Jehajists. What I do know is that the evidence is a lot more important than either sides self serving interpretation of it. What else I know is that if an evaluation of the evidence leads people to think that the Administration was not as alert as the situation reasonably required, if the Administration was focused on Iraq to the unreasonable exclusion of other matters, then Mr. Bush and the boys should start moving their papers to the GW annex to the GHW Library at College Station.
I don’t have any idea that it was an easy thing to detect or thwart the Jehadists who were responsible for the attack on the Cole, or the embassy bombings or the catastrophe of September 11, but I do have the idea that the Bush Administration is running scared right now and finds it easier to throw mud at Clarke than to just deal with the facts and with the rational for policy decisions.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Whether it’s Clinton or Bush, if it’s putting boots on the ground in Afghanistan before 9/11 that we’re talking about, the will just wasn’t there.
But that just moves the question back to, what did each administration do, given that that was out of the question?
Realistically, no administration was likely to figure out there was a hostile organization out there with an ongoing hatred of us until after the embassy bombings in 1998. And at that point, Clinton did get the message, and acted on it within those limits: he tried to take out Bin Laden with a cruise missile; he went to battle stations in late 1999 when the intelligence said there was a lot of chatter about an attack coming. The main arguable call is his response to the USS Cole. He could have gone on the offensive against Al Qaeda in the waning days of his presidency, and in retrospect he should have, IMHO. But I can understand why he didn’t: there have been too many problems, historically, when one administration leaves something like that for the next, whether we’re talking about the Bay of Pigs or David Koresh.
But as Time said back in 2002:
And the response was, what?
The big initiative of the late summer was tee-ball, IIRC.